Two small essays

A Case Brief of Zippo Manufacturing Company

ZIPPO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ZIPPO DOT COM, 952 F. Supp. 1119; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1701; 42 U.S.PQ.2D (BNA) 1062

This particular case is found in Volume 952 of the Report; Second Series is found at page 1119 in an opinion written by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the year 1997.

FACTS: Plaintiff designed a Trademark under the Federal Trademark Act. A Defendant dishonored the trademark in his forum-related activities for conducting business with Pennsylvania residents. Defendant contracted with numerous individuals and internet access providers in Pennsylvania, and the intended objects of business had been the downloading of electronic messages that formed the root of the suit in Pennsylvania. Both parties filed a complaint against each other, where Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant claiming trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation. Defendant also filed a motion for dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaints because it lacked personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: .5/4 pts. Unfortunately, you only identified 1 or 2 relevant facts thus it does not appear you understand the purpose of this section.  When completing this section you want to use the facts that gave rise to the plaintiff suing or to the actual issue being answered. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: This is a conclusion but not a fact. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: This is a conclusion as well. What facts support it?

ISSUE: Whether the increased dilution and infringement of the trademark would stop Plaintiff from transacting business in Pennsylvania. Should the defendant be allowed to dismiss the complaints of Plaintiff due to lack of personal jurisdiction and venue to deny the trademark rights of business transaction in Pennsylvania? Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: 3 /4 pts. Good, you demonstrated some understanding of this section and identified the issue but included explanation or irrelevant information showing proficient problem solving skills. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: This isn’t an issue for this version of the case. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: This is the issue.

HOLDING: The increased dilution and infringement of the trademark would not stop Plaintiff from transacting business in Pennsylvania. The defendant was not allowed to dismiss the case filed by Plaintiff for a reason of lack of personal jurisdiction and proper venue. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: 3/4 pts. Good, you showed some comprehension of the purpose of this section and identified the holding a degree demonstrating proficient problem solving skills. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: Not appropriate for this section as it doesn’t apply to the issue.

LAW: The court held the venue of Plaintiff is proper following the trademark Act 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391 (b) that provides that a corporate was judged to live in any judicial district in which it was a priority to personal jurisdiction. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: 1/2 Good, you demonstrated some understanding of this section and did identify one of the laws used for the court’s holding showing emerging analysis.  Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: Unfortunately, you’re misstating the law, particularly as it applies to trademarks and personal jurisdiction which are two completely separate areas of law. Trademark law is substantive law while jurisdiction is procedural law.

RATIONALE: The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff using the trademark Act 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391 (b) concerning the defendant's motion for dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case due to lack of personal jurisdiction and proper venue and finding that the increased dilution and infringement of the trademark to be stopped. Pursuant to trademark Act 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391 (b) the Court was required to begin with the understanding that Plaintiff’s trademark lacked personal jurisdiction and proper venue. However, in the case, the defendant intended to stop the trademark from doing business in Pennsylvania by conducting electrical commerce with the residents. Thus, the court must then, pursuant to Trademark Act 28 U.S.C.S. § 1391 (b) provide that a corporate defendant was deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it was subject to personal jurisdiction. The law denies the motion for dismissal by the defendant. In this case, Plaintiff argued that the defender has tarnished the trademark but still should be used to conduct business in the country. The defendant feels that the case should be dismissed and the trademark to be denied business rights. Even if the court were to use the argument, the law still favors the Plaintiff. The court denied defendant’s action to dismiss for lack of personal right holding that the court had personal power over defendant since defendant’s conducting electronic commerce with state’s residents constituted a purposeful presence of doing a business in the state; the court also ruled the place was appropriate and dismissed the request to transfer the case. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: 3.5/6 pts. Fair comprehension of this section. Attempted to analyze the court’s holding but did not properly relate the facts to the law demonstrating developing rather than proficient or exemplary problem solving and analytical skills. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: Unfortunately, that’s incorrect. Comment by Eldridge.Deborah: It wasn’t the trademark that lacked personal jurisdiction and in fact there was personal jurisdiction over the defendant.